======== Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: VEDANTA From: Jahnu@wineasy.se (Jahnu dasa) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:40:45 GMT Smedley wrote: >Well, Jahnu's true colors are finally revealed. >He is a lunatic. Explain please. Why do you call me a lunatic? >I am an atheist. I don't suggest that. Have you been taking >straw-man lesson from John McCoy? You are the one who assumes >that an afterlife is necessary in order for life to have meaning. But otherwise what can you look forward to but death and in the meantime watch all your loved ones leave you? >Heck, in your mind I'm sure it is and that is WHY you are religious. Not really. I'm religious because I want to learn how to love God. >Because you cannot deal with the truth: there is no afterlife >(well, at least there is no evidence for one) Well, I know beyond doubt that there is life after death. And there is lots of evidence too. Did you ever read the account of Shanti deva? A girl in India who could remember her past life. There is also a psychologist, Ian Stevenson, who studies children and their spontaneous remembrance of earlier lives. He has written a book called "60 cases that suggest reincarnation." You should read it. Maybe you'd find it interesting. >>Why shouldn't I use a computer? I have to in order to counteract the >>brain dead propaganda oozing out from the atheistic propaganda machine >>like pus from an infested sore. >Oh, Jahnu Jahnu. Do you not see the hypocrisy (funny its obvious to >all us ignorant atheists...)? You say that all of science is ignorance. >Scientific minds using scientific methods have created the >medium by which you choose to preach. So, you USE the fruits of >ignorance to provide truth to the ignorant. Why bother? You have >called modern science worthless. Why do you then find worth in >worthlessness. Your actions totally contradict your words. No they don't. If I want to combat atheism, which I consider a heinous philosophy which must be destroyed by all means, I have to take the aid of the same media that the atheists use to spread their nonsense, don't I? > If science >did not lead to anything good then you would not choose to use the >fruits of science. I never said that science in and of itself cannot do anything good. My objection is when science is used to promote atheism. I said that atheism is no good. Why? Because it makes people stupid and insensitive to the sufferings of others. > Yet you do. Tell me, have you ever taken anti-biotics? >Have those medicines ever been tested on animals? >And you call us ignorant!!?!?!?!?!? You really missed the point completely didn't you? >What a fool you are! There are height records of 100 years ago. >We don't even have to look at fossils. There are medical histories. >There are photographs. There are many many documentations of human >height 100 years ago. Really? That means you accept their version. You don't know. You simply accept when someone tells you that there are records and fotos. >Yet you use the internet. Pathetic. No it's pathetic when internet is used by demons to spread the hopeless message of atheism. Fortunately they cannot manipulate the internet as they do the other electronic media like TV and radio. Surely the more thoughtful section of the people are vastly outnumbered on the net, but still this atheism doesn't go undisputed, which is very, very good. You may even live to see the net create a revolution in the hearts of man. Then these demons and their crummy, low-life, civilization will be finished. The funny thing is that they were the ones who created the net. That network which they created for the distribution of their rascaldom could very well become instrumental in their downfall. And you know what is even more funny?... there ain't a thing in the world they can do to stop it. Don't you think this is hilarious? >>All you can look forward to in that believe >>system is to rot and die and while you wait for that inevitable >>hopeless end, you should kindly buy as many as the gadgets they >>provide you with out of their causeless mercy and deep affection for >>humanity. >Its clear now why you became a lunatic and a Krishna. You had >such a dim view of life and are unable to see the beauty of life >and the wonders of nature. Yes nature is certainly wonderful. How much more wonderful must it's designer not be? To see the wonders of nature and say that this has all come about due to random chance, and that there is no intelligent direction in nature, _that_ , my friend, is a clear sign of lunacy. > I love nature. Do you really? How do you manifest that love? Or rather, how do the modern consumer civilization manifest it's love for nature? Please tell me that? > I love mystery. You don't seem too eager to solve the mysteries of life. What's the use of mysteries if they can't be solved? > I love >scientific discovery. Like what? > I love love. How does a bunch chemicals love? Do you even know what love is? Maybe you are not the worst, but what about all the countless creatures we kill every day to simply eat them? Is that love? Do you know that they kill 7000 chickens per second on this planet? Is that love? Is it love to kill and torture innocent animals in the name of progress? > I live for them. You die for them. > I even like >gadgets, its true. Who doesn't? The question is, what is our motivations behind the use of gadgets? >>Aren't we being a little emotional here?Is that supposed to be an >>intelligent statement? Did you investigate? Did you check anything out >>except what's on your TV screen? What's your foundation for saying >>that all religion is bullshit? Did you check out all religion? You are >>simply a tiny inexperienced teenager with cow dung for brains. >> >Wow "cow dung for brains"? Does that sound like it would come from >someone who is at peace with the universe? Do you even have a clue, beyond the sentimental notions in your mind, what kind of statements woud come from someone who is at peace with the universe? > Hey, that cows were >considered to be holy anyway...i guess you could do worse than >have holy-shit for brains ;) Well, cow dung is certainly very good as fuel and for enriching the soil, but it doesn't work so good for brains. A cow is holy because human kind grew up on her milk and therefore she is considered to be your mother, but that doesn't mean she is very smart, does it? :) >>Do you think that they would study the writings - which by the way >>were written in the most sophisticated and complex language known to >>mankind - by some goat ropers in all the major universities of the >>world? Am I talking to an insect here or what? Why don't you go get >>yourself an education? Oh, I forgot, you don't need that here in >>alt.atheism, right? >Do I sense anger from one of the happiest people alive? >Thats weird, isn't it? Do you sense anything beyond your self styled, concocted ideas? Tell me, why is it weird to become angry? Don't happy people ever become angry? In fact I'm happy to become angry in defence of Krishna and His devotees. Such anger makes you blissfull, whereas were you to become angry due to your false ego, it simply pollutes your consciousness. >>This is a free forum for all kinds of unbacked, unfounded spewings >>from teenagers with no goal or aim in life, right? >Wrong. (yes, your intuitions are wrong). I have not been a teenager for >many years. I have many goals in life. None of them include >roting away with no purpose. Are you a teenager? Then how come you told me you were a psychologist? Or is that your field of study? Then you haven't quite made it to that degree yet, have you? What is your goal in life? Let me tell you that whatever it is, if it isn't spiritual, it will frustrate you because you will rot and die. Nature doesn't care for your dreams. She will kill you, maybe even before you had a chance to fulfill your dreams. Will you also love nature when she kills you? >There you go again. Nothing comes from science but ignorance, oh and >a way for the Vedas to be preached more effectively. You realize that >you have just admitted that modern science has created items which >have "Good Use" Now that you have admitted this, I expect you to recant >all your assertions that there is nothing useful that comes out of >science. I never claimed that, so there is nothing to recant. >>What do you think it must feel like to a person without arms or legs >>to be told that he is his body and that he has no other identity >>beyond that? What can you offer the unlucky, disabled and poor people >>of the world? Huh, smart boy? Tell me that. >It really does not matter. Just because life sucks for some people >does not mean that gods exist. Its foolish to think so. Really, I >have to say that your true colors are finally showing: >JAHNU BELIEVES IN GODS BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF LIFE >WITHOUT THEM. Of course I am. Only a fool would not be. It makes life meaningless without a God.It makes good and bad, right and wrong meaningless terms.If there is no God to define these terms nothing is good or bad. Everybody is simply acting out their genes, isn't it Mr. Brainy? What could be wrong with acting out your genes? If there is no God, right or wrong are just terms that you have to define for yourself, isn't it? Well, I think you are a dog-brain, Smedley (is that your name or is it S. Medley?), and it must be right because I think so. If the neutrons running laps in my brain tell me that you have garbage for brains, then it must be true, right? Since you don't accept any absolute standard of moral and ethics, everything, according to you, must be randomly and majestically relative which means that you are relatively stupid. Furthermore it means I have the right to kill you because I think you are stupid, right? I am after all just acting out my genes. What could possibly be wrong with acting out my genes, eh? >>Atheism is simply an oppressive and depressive philosophy with nothing >>to offer people except polished animal life. >Regardless of whether or not you are of this opinion (admittedly, some >atheists agree with you on this) it does not mean that this is not the >reality. So let me kill and eat you, right? >Got it? If something sucks, it doesn't mean its not true. So if your brain sucks it could be true, right? >>In fact you didn't see anyone walking on the moon. Do I have to remind >>you that your eyes are imperfect and don't have the ability to look >>all the way to the moon? All you saw was some pictures on your TV >>screen. Actually I doubt you even saw that. You probably weren't even >>born in -69. Do you believe anything you see on TV? >You don't belive that man walked on the moon? You really are a lunatic. There are many, smart boy, who don't believe in that. In fact a survey conducted by L.A. Times or Chronicle or whatever in 1975 showed that 28% of the American people didn't believe they went to the moon. Somebody from NASA wrote a book called, "They Never Went To the Moon." Did you read that? Guess you didn't learn about that in school, huh? >>Do you know what a computer looked like in -69? Like the computer I am >>using right now, which is just an ordinary 486/DX4/100Mhz - it's >>practically outdated by the current standard - do you know what such a >>computer looked like in -69? Let me tell you; it would practically >>take up the space of an entire block. >And your point is? Are you dumb or what? >>Do you know that the power and speed of the computer they brought in >>their space shuttle was equal to that of a modern calculator similar >>to what the kids use in highschool now a days? In fact somebody wrote >>a book about that. It is called "Going to the moon in a calculator." >>Did you read that? >And your point is? The point is that everything is not necessarily as it appears on TV. >>And why aren't they going to the moon anymore now a days? Imagine how >>handy it would be.They could skip all their atomic and chemical waste, >>which now rots on the floors of the oceans, to the moon. Why don't >>they do that? Why don't they do something usefull like that with their >>spaceprogram? Tell me that, smart boy. >Because it would be too expensive. Its cheaper to dispose of garbage here. >Its pretty pathetic when even your rhetorical questions are easily >answerable. Are you sure? >>Well, they certainly spend a lot of money uselessly, exploding space >>ships, in stead of feeding the poor, wouldn't you say? >Wait, I thought you said that the space program was a sham and that >we were fools for believing that it exists because we only saw it >on T.V.? A program that does not exist could not waste very much >money. Did I say that they didn't have a space program? -Jahnu http://webcom.com/~ara/col/vv.html http://www.users.wineasy.se/storm/ http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/hkindex.html